Friday, May 09, 2014

Strategic Assessment

The letter to the editor below from Joaquin Perez is very instructive. He discusses possible theories regarding the military buildup as currently proposed, drawing attention to possible connections between elements which people may not be noticing. One suggestion he makes is that perhaps the identifying of Litekyan as the location for a new firing range safety danger zone, could possibly be a tricky ploy to get Pagat, a place once taken off the table, back on the table. Technically Pagat is still on the table and is still a site the DOD designates for their firing range, but the popular opinion feels that it is no longer an option, the movement to save it was successful.

Perez's article begs several questions that are important and need to be considered. Key amongst them in terms of resisting or countering or challenging is how should we interpret the military as an institution, in what way, through what level of consistency, efficiency or power should we see it? With Perez's theories in mind it becomes necessary to think clearly about how people like me should position the military in terms of its strategic capabilities, and in terms of its ability to play the game of hegemony and discursive domination. Para Guahu, I am always torn over the US military and how to perceive it. There are some moments where the military plans 30 years advance, and it is this long-view, long-term, patient and methodical dimension that Perez is alluding to. But then there are some moments where it seems clear that the DOD cannot seem something that is standing in front of it, and that is can also cloud its own vision to deny something that is so painful obvious, but might require a changing of course or a reevaluation of action.

If you imagine the military to be a chess champion, where the different parts of it can coalesce together to imagine the longer war of ideas and policies, and have the ability to plan for something a generation or two ahead, than what Perez is hinting at is very possible. It is important to remember although so many forget, that the discussion of US troops out of Okinawa has been going on for decades, since the 1970s. The Guam Doctrine and the signing of the CNMI Covenant are both moments from long ago, directly tied to the moving of US troops out of Okinawa into somewhere closer to home.

But at the same time, if we look at the hasty and haphazard and taihinasso way the buildup plans were thrown together just a few years ago, we can see how the DOD doesn't necessarily have the unity and the cohesiveness that we might assume. Part of the problem of the buildup, even as just as idea and nothing actually connected to the island, was that it could not survive very well from one election to the next. What started as a DOD fantasy under Bush, became very different under Obama. In just a few years even the position of so many different parts of the the Federal government became divided over Guam and the buildup. The military itself struggled with the buildup since it was originally conceived of as not a strategic solution but a political solution aimed at relieving the stress of what has been known as "The Okinawan Problem," or what to do with the bases in Okinawa.

People often focus on a type of moral judgement or estimate of something like DOD and while that can flavor the type of interventions or ideological approaches you take, it does not hold as much importance in terms of developing strategies as the simple determination of capability. This is such an important initial point that you need to start with, because it can and should affect everything that comes after. But you have to be cautious about not letting the moral judgements you make skew your perceptions towards viewing DOD through the extremes of monolithic, unassailable powerhouse or bureaucratic, mindless, hopeless maze of pointlessness. This assessment has to be as objective as you can make it, so that you do not give too much credit, too much power, or too little respect and too little apprehension to those who you are seeking to counter.

********************

Joaquin Perez
Letter to the Editor
Guam PDN
5/7/14

The stealthy introduction of H.R. 4402, the rush through an
expedited hearing, with only federal officials testifying, has given
rise to some serious questions. The rush to append H.R. 4402 to the
National Defense Authorization Act puts to shame some of the
hush-and-rush riders of the Guam Legislature over the years.

So who learned from who?

There
is no question that there will be some economic benefits to Guam. As to
how much and for how long, I doubt that anyone has even attempted
believable research beyond glossy media releases of how much Congress
has appropriated and the size of Guam military construction contracts.
During
the buildup, there will be a lot of activity. Construction work will
require substantial funding, the bulk will go to off-island companies,
with some to be portioned out to local sub-contractors.

Reminds one of
Marie Antoinette's pronouncements on feeding the masses before she was
rudely guillotined.

In the beginning, there will be many
construction-related jobs. How long these jobs will last and will they
go to people whose permanent home is Guam are other questions.

After
construction, economic benefits will continue but at slower paces. If
the Department of Defense can be trusted to be honest about rotational
troops, Section 30 funds will be boosted. Notwithstanding all the
fanfare about pennies from heaven, what are the real costs -- beyond the
dollar signs -- and should the people of Guam turn their umbrellas
upside down?

In 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
announced: the Guam relocation is feasible; and could be accomplished
within the existing military footprint with no need to acquire more
land. With that pronouncement, support for the buildup, despite
unaddressed issues and problems, was high, possibly even exceeding the
support given the military buildup after World War II.

Some speculate that if
Rumsfeld's pronouncements had remained true, the buildup could have
proceeded with little opposition. However, support for the buildup waned
at the announcement that over 1,000 acres of additional land, devouring
an ancient Chamorro village, would be condemned for a live firing
range. Among many of Guam's intelligent young minds, the question
quickly became should the buildup be supported at any cost. What will
the ultimate price be, not only as measured in dollars?

In this
vein, what are the real purposes of H.R. 4402? Was it assumed that Fish
and Wildlife, the Sierra Club and other conservationists would simply
play dead on the issues, giving the Secretary of the Navy the authority
to shut down the Ritidian area to people but still exposing Guam's last
colony of 60 fanihi to total destruction?

Or was H.R. 4402
conjured up by deviant minds, creating a firestorm over Ritidian,
knowing that Fish and Wildlife, the Sierra Club and other will not roll
over -- so Pågat again suddenly becomes the only suitable alternative?

Again,
the question: What price the buildup? Wise men note that if we do not
learn from the past, history will repeat itself. If we did not learn
anything from the re-occupation of Guam and the land takings between
1945 and 1960, then it will happen again.

If you are happy and can
live with that, then by all means support the buildup. But if there are
any lingering questions, then they should be answered, not only by our
leaders, but in our individual minds and hearts.

In this vein, I am wrestling with whether the buildup is really as good as some would have us believe.

No comments:

LinkWithin

Put Guahu / About Me

This blog is dedicated to Chamorro issues, the use and revitalization of the Chamoru language and the decolonization of Guam. This blog also aims to inform people around the world about the history, culture and language and struggles of the Chamorro people, who are the indigenous islanders of Guam, Saipan, Tinian, Luta and Pagan in the Mariana Islands. Pues Haggannaihon ha', ya taitai na'ya, ya Si Yu'us Ma'ase para i finatto-mu.

Statcounter Code

The Revolution Will Not Be Haolified

THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE HAOLIFIEDTinige’ as Guahu - 2003 (updated 2008)

You will not be able to ignore it che’lu * This time you will not be able to blame it all on Anghet * You will not be able to change channels * And watch Fear Factor, Rev TV of Salamat Po Guam because * The Revolution will not be televised

The revolution will not be televised, nor will it be advertised * It will not be sponsored by the Good Guys at Moylan’s or the better guys at AK. * It will not be something easily explained by radio callers * Whether they be Positively Local, Definitively Settler, or Surprisingly Coconut * It will not be cornered by the Calvos and explained by Sabrina Salas * Matanane * After the story about the incoming B-52’s or 1000’s of Marines careening towards to Guam, and how we * should be economically energized and not terrorized. * Jon Anderson will have no TT anecdotes about it * and Chris Barnett won’t malafunkshun it because the revolution will not be televised

The revolution will not be televised or editorialized * It will not be something canabilized with two inches here two inches there * Dubious headlines everywhere * Lee Weber will not edit it * Joe Murphy will not put it in his pipe and smoke it * Nor dream about it, or tell others the wonders and blunders of it. * There will be no letters to the editor quoting scriptures or denying its constitutionality * And there will be no American flag inserts saying these three colors just don’t run * As the revolution will not be editorialized

The revolution will not be televised or politicized * It will not play the same old gayu games * And promise you that same old talonan things. * The revolution will not wave at you as you drive by on Marine Drive * And seduce you with its hardworking eyes. * It will not be territorial or popular, and not encourage you with maolek blue. * The revolution will not put marang salaman po after its speeches to get more Filipino votes in the next election because the revolution will not be politicized

The revolution will not be televised, not be theorized * It will not be something GCC or UOG friendly. * There will be no books at Bestseller offering to help you lose something in 90 days * Or Rachel Ray helping you cook the revolution of your way. * Ron McNinch will not survey it * and will not poll people about their revolution of choice. * There will be no WASC review report demanding accountability demanding autonomy * And no beachcombing carpetbaggers will proclaim their own terminal authority * Over the histories, the laws, the thinking of those for whom they see nothing but corrupt and corrupting inferiority * The revolution will not be colonized

The revolution will not be televised, not be supersized. * The revolution will not be something you can buy at Ross, or get at blue light cost * It is not just red rice, kelaguan uhang, or popcorn with Tobacco sauce. * It doesn’t come with Coke and it doesn’t fit on a fiesta plate. * The revolution will not make you gof sinexy, cure your jafjaf, or make fragrant your fa’fa’ * The revolution will not force you to be where America’s empire begins * Or where Japan’s golf courses and Gerry Yingling’s credit card debt ends. * You won’t need a credit card, or be charged for the tin foil to cover your balutan * As the revolution will not be economized

The revolution will not be televised, blownback or militarized * There will be no more physical ordnance buried in people’s lands * And no more patrionizing propaganda buried in people’s minds * The revolution will not get you cheaper cases of chicken or increased commissary privileges. * It will not make freedomless flags feel more comfortable in your hands * Or make uniforms fit more snugly around your mind. * The revolution will not deny racism or exploitation * And not create histories about landfalls of destiny * But instead publicize the racism and evils of American hegemony. * The revolution will not be subsidized by construction contracts or the race of Senator Inouye or Congressman Burton * It will not be laid waste to by daisy cut budgets or Medicare spending limits * Instead it will be sustained by deep memories that refuse to die * The revolution will not be televised.

The revolution will not be televised and will not polarize based on blood or color * It will not make your skin lighter * It will not make your skin darker * It will not test your blood the way Hitler or Uncle Sam would of done * It will not hate some and love others based on their time of naturalization * Or incept date of their compacts of free association. * But the revolution will help some find comfort, find strength, find power * In their connections to the land and to each other * Allow some to discover the sovereignty that can be found in solidarity * The revolution will take and remake this consciousness that doesn’t need to be televised * But does need to be revolutionized * The revolution will not be haolified * The revolution will not be haolified